Skip to main content

I challenge the DA to show 'criminal intent' on the part of the student in question.  Idiotic rules like this one should result  in terminations of all involved in enforcing them.

http://www.newschannel5.com/st...knife-in-fathers-car

'The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.'

'When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.'

'And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.'

'An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.' - Thomas Jefferson

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I basically agree, dog, but just to play Devil's advocate...

 

Let's say the boy was driving his father's car in downtown Clarksville when he's pulled over for exceeding the speed limit. Cops find some pot wedged between the seats. It may belong to the father, but he's on the West Coast. Should...or would...the cops believe the 18 year old?

Originally Posted by Kate Colombo:

I basically agree, dog, but just to play Devil's advocate...

 

Let's say the boy was driving his father's car in downtown Clarksville when he's pulled over for exceeding the speed limit. Cops find some pot wedged between the seats. It may belong to the father, but he's on the West Coast. Should...or would...the cops believe the 18 year old?

I was gonna say the same thing. Rules are rules. If they are enforced, you can't blame the enforcers in a zero tolerance situation. If it was the situation you described, you couldn't fault police. It would be up to presiding judge or jury.

Last edited by wright35633

Well, the article didn't say for sure, but if the knife was "between the seats", how was it discovered ?

Was a search warrant issued to search the car, and on what grounds.

It seems to me that the kid's Constitutional rights were violated just in "finding" the knife.

In the next place, if dumbass "rules" like that had been around when I was in school, I would never have gotten thru grade school. I've carried a knife as long as i can remember, and when I started school 1st grade, you can pretty much bet I had a knife in my pocket.

 

Oh, and to the original question "where's the crime ? " , the crime is the entering and searching of his car.

 

Last edited by seeweed
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well, the article didn't say for sure, but if the knife was "between the seats", how was it discovered ?

Was a search warrant issued to search the car, and on what grounds.

It seems to me that the kid's Constitutional rights were violated just in "finding" the knife.

In the next place, if dumbass "rules" like that had been around when I was in school, I would never have gotten thru grade school. I've carried a knife as long as i can remember, and when I started school 1st grade, you can pretty much bet I had a knife in my pocket.

 

Oh, and to the original question "where's the crime ? " , the crime is the entering and searching of his car.

 

"Duren-Sanner gave permission because he said he had nothing to hide."

 

Good ole Seeweed. Always quick to judge the actions of authority. Consent is an exemption to a search warrant.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

This is an example of the problems associated with zero tolerance rules or mandatory sentencing. Each case can't be judged by its own merits or circumstances. That is how innocent people or people that are not hard criminals lives are ruined over small mistakes. 

I agree. There are numerous cases where a student defends his or herself from a bully's physical violence, only to be suspended or worse for letting someone beat him. Zero Tolerance is simply a shifting of responsibility from those in charge to the student and parents.

 If he had knifed someone in the parking lot there would be outrage that his vehicle wasn't checked properly, or that they didn't do anything when they found the knife. Jt would be saying the cops don't care about other's safety, and it's all the fault of corporations. Well, my standard answer on stories like these, not enough information to know the real story.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Police used to keep the peace.  I think that meant to take someone home or write a ticket or take them to jail.  Whatever it took to keep their beat peaceful.

Now, the police seems to be pencil pushing ticket writers.  The more charges they can dream up to write tickets for, the more they can brag about doing.

===============

Really? That's how it used to be? LOL!!

Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well, the article didn't say for sure, but if the knife was "between the seats", how was it discovered ?

Was a search warrant issued to search the car, and on what grounds.

It seems to me that the kid's Constitutional rights were violated just in "finding" the knife.

In the next place, if dumbass "rules" like that had been around when I was in school, I would never have gotten thru grade school. I've carried a knife as long as i can remember, and when I started school 1st grade, you can pretty much bet I had a knife in my pocket.

 

Oh, and to the original question "where's the crime ? " , the crime is the entering and searching of his car.

 

"Duren-Sanner gave permission because he said he had nothing to hide."

 

Good ole Seeweed. Always quick to judge the actions of authority. Consent is an exemption to a search warrant.

=========

And I have tried so hard not to offend you , I thought you would be proud that I have restrained myself by not mentioning about a week or so ago, where cops busted into the house of an 80something year old couple in the middle of the night, shot and killed the man in bed on a drug bust - OOPS ! wrong house, or about a month ago, when a black man had a wreck, and was hurt, and headed to a cop for help and was shot dead begging for help. OOPS ! he was unarmed (but drunk) ,and about a dozen other incidents similar.
It the recent concept that seems to be taking over the "authorities" of shoot to kill first, and ask questions later. What makes it even worse, it seems to me that most of it comes from "drug bust" which is another way of saying "the cops are gonna come in , shoot you up, and take your property because you have drugs" .  While that may be the law, thanks to GHW Bush, it has led to perfectly innocient people being shot in their beds. 

 If he had knifed someone in the parking lot there would be outrage that his vehicle wasn't checked properly, or that they didn't do anything when they found the knife. Jt would be saying the cops don't care about other's safety, and it's all the fault of corporations. Well, my standard answer on stories like these, not enough information to know the real story.

If you read the story from news channel 5, that should give most people enough info.

 

What answer did I give to which/whose question? I said there's not enough information to know the real story. You have a problem with that?

 

I refer to the above.

And, "jt would be saying the cops don't care about other's safety, and it's all the fault of corporations.  Well, my standard answer   Wait, lets stop right there,  That is your standard answer. Anything to make ole JT look bad.  Feel free to go right ahead, if logic was dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.

I refer to the above.

And, "jt would be saying the cops don't care about other's safety, and it's all the fault of corporations.  Well, my standard answer   Wait, lets stop right there,  That is your standard answer. Anything to make ole JT look bad.  Feel free to go right ahead, if logic was dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.

------------------------

So, again, you have a problem with me saying I need more information to answer "where's the crime", and somehow that makes you look bad? You don't need my help to look bad, you do that all by yourself. If logic was dynamite you couldn't even light the fuse.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well, the article didn't say for sure, but if the knife was "between the seats", how was it discovered ?

Was a search warrant issued to search the car, and on what grounds.

It seems to me that the kid's Constitutional rights were violated just in "finding" the knife.

In the next place, if dumbass "rules" like that had been around when I was in school, I would never have gotten thru grade school. I've carried a knife as long as i can remember, and when I started school 1st grade, you can pretty much bet I had a knife in my pocket.

 

Oh, and to the original question "where's the crime ? " , the crime is the entering and searching of his car.

 

"Duren-Sanner gave permission because he said he had nothing to hide."

 

Good ole Seeweed. Always quick to judge the actions of authority. Consent is an exemption to a search warrant.

=========

And I have tried so hard not to offend you , I thought you would be proud that I have restrained myself by not mentioning about a week or so ago, where cops busted into the house of an 80something year old couple in the middle of the night, shot and killed the man in bed on a drug bust - OOPS ! wrong house, or about a month ago, when a black man had a wreck, and was hurt, and headed to a cop for help and was shot dead begging for help. OOPS ! he was unarmed (but drunk) ,and about a dozen other incidents similar.
It the recent concept that seems to be taking over the "authorities" of shoot to kill first, and ask questions later. What makes it even worse, it seems to me that most of it comes from "drug bust" which is another way of saying "the cops are gonna come in , shoot you up, and take your property because you have drugs" .  While that may be the law, thanks to GHW Bush, it has led to perfectly innocient people being shot in their beds. 

I wasn't offended. It was just playful banter. Will you link the story of the black man in the wreck? I'm only familiar with a black female shot by a homeowner through the door. He wasn't a cop and was arrested for murder. 

Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Well, the article didn't say for sure, but if the knife was "between the seats", how was it discovered ?

Was a search warrant issued to search the car, and on what grounds.

It seems to me that the kid's Constitutional rights were violated just in "finding" the knife.

In the next place, if dumbass "rules" like that had been around when I was in school, I would never have gotten thru grade school. I've carried a knife as long as i can remember, and when I started school 1st grade, you can pretty much bet I had a knife in my pocket.

 

Oh, and to the original question "where's the crime ? " , the crime is the entering and searching of his car.

 

"Duren-Sanner gave permission because he said he had nothing to hide."

 

Good ole Seeweed. Always quick to judge the actions of authority. Consent is an exemption to a search warrant.

=========

And I have tried so hard not to offend you , I thought you would be proud that I have restrained myself by not mentioning about a week or so ago, where cops busted into the house of an 80something year old couple in the middle of the night, shot and killed the man in bed on a drug bust - OOPS ! wrong house, or about a month ago, when a black man had a wreck, and was hurt, and headed to a cop for help and was shot dead begging for help. OOPS ! he was unarmed (but drunk) ,and about a dozen other incidents similar.
It the recent concept that seems to be taking over the "authorities" of shoot to kill first, and ask questions later. What makes it even worse, it seems to me that most of it comes from "drug bust" which is another way of saying "the cops are gonna come in , shoot you up, and take your property because you have drugs" .  While that may be the law, thanks to GHW Bush, it has led to perfectly innocient people being shot in their beds. 

I wasn't offended. It was just playful banter. Did you see the quote I referenced? His consent was the exception to getting a warrant. Will you link the story of the black man in the wreck? I'm only familiar with a black female shot by a homeowner through the door. He wasn't a cop and was arrested for murder. 

 

Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:

And then there's that great 'little tool' called 'officer discretion', which not many younger officers seem to know much about........

I agree. But in this situation it was a zero tolerance policy enforced by school administrators. I hope to see the local LEO's not charge the kid. At most, maybe a consultation with JPO.

Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I wasn't offended. It was just playful banter. Did you see the quote I referenced? His consent was the exception to getting a warrant. Will you link the story of the black man in the wreck? I'm only familiar with a black female shot by a homeowner through the door. He wasn't a cop and was arrested for murder. 

 

Well, not too sure if these are the ones I read or ones just similiar. I don't bookmark these things and there are so many that a google turns up way too many to try to sort out which ones I may have read .
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no...armed-mans-shooting/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTVlhvXGFM

I can't find the one I referred to , but it was about a week ago. Police had a tip from an informant (who later said she smelled a bad smell and thought it was a meth lab), so they picked the middle of the night, did a no knock, and  killed an elderly man in his hallway .
Turned out, there were no illegal drugs at all in the house, and no sign of a meth lab.

Here is a youtube that just makes me sick to my stomach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTVlhvXGFM

 

I don't know what the back story on that last one is, but most of these "just break into the house and shoot people in bed, or standing in the hall or whatever, whether they are breaking the law or not" has got to do with the "war on drugs"  and the police departments trying to steal the posessions of people doing drugs or whatever. I think that entire chain of events is just wrong !
My position is "STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS" - You have LOST it .
Try something different, that has worked in some other countries;
take all of what is "illegal" drugs and put them in the drug stores.

Allow doctors to write as many scripts for them as they think an addict needs to maintain his habbit. - in short, the DEA, the FBI, and basically all law enforcement need to get off the doctor's back.
Sure, some will abuse it, but in practice, where this approach has been tried, crime has dropped dramatically, and as time has gone on , it was found that less people were actually addicted than before.

That's my idea, prohibition did not work for alcohol in the 20s, it hasen't worked for marijuana since Nixon criminalized it, and it hasen't worked to get the pusher off the street corner.
For goodness sake, try something different ! Often said is that the definition of an idiot is someone who continues to do the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome each time.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×